Galapagos Island Volcano Erupts After 33 Years, Threatening Fragile Ecosystem 186
An anonymous reader writes: Wolf volcano in the Galapagos islands has erupted for the first time in more than 30 years, sending lava flowing down its slopes and potentially threatening the world's only colony of pink iguanas. The Galapagos National Park says that currently there is no risk to tourism operations, but the Environment Ministry is notifying tourist operators to take precautions. A tourist boat passing by took an amazing picture of the eruption.
A link to a broken facebook page.. (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't this place have editors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A facebook login, that would be something the lobotomites who use facebook have?
Re: (Score:2)
Home come Google doesn't have a Facebook login, yet?
I feel they should index the page in search results and make the image available from the Cache.
Re: (Score:2)
So like the AC said, it's a broken Facebook page.
Photo? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a freakin' volcano erupting and all we get is a Reuters article without any photo and a link to lame-ass Facebook which doesn't even work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I get:
Sorry, this page isn't available
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.
Re: (Score:2)
I get those pages fine. Where are you browsing from and what browser are you using?
Re:Photo? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems the problem is that I don't have a Facebook account. If you call that a problem.
Shame on samzenpus for thinking everyone is a lemming, especially on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a facebook account up until 3 years ago. It got to be so obnoxious and constant source of Spam that I deleted it. The only thing I've ever found to be a bigger waste of time than playing Solitaire.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you add "friends" that spam you?
Re: (Score:2)
Shame on samzenpus for thinking everyone is a lemming, especially on Slashdot.
Facebook has 1.44billion active accounts and that includes countries which have no access to the internet. Given the current stats of the number of people around the world who are connected it stands to reason that someone in the western society would have a Facebook account even if they don't actively use it.
Samzenpus wasn't thinking anything, he was relying on statistics and surprisingly many of us see the photo just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Samzenpus wasn't thinking anything, he was relying on statistics and surprisingly many of us see the photo just fine.
"Surprisingly"? Surely you meant "unsurprisingly"?
Re: (Score:3)
Found the problem, you have to be logged in to Facebook to see it. Or you could Google [google.ca] it.
Why would I want a Facebook account? (Score:5, Insightful)
Found the problem, you have to be logged in to Facebook to see it.
And why on earth would I want to do that? Facebook has nothing of value to offer me that I care about and I sure as hell do not trust the company. I do not have a Facebook account and don't expect to get one any time soon. I'm certainly not going to sign up to get some random news article that undoubtedly will be available elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I rail against NYT paywalls which people erroneously claim can by bypassed by private browsing, and I get accused of trolling. One failbook link, and everyone LOSES THEIR MINDS
Or however the meme goes.
No paywall protected article links in summary (Score:2)
Man, I rail against NYT paywalls which people erroneously claim can by bypassed by private browsing, and I get accused of trolling. One failbook link, and everyone LOSES THEIR MINDS
Same basic issue but frankly I trust the NTY *far* more than I trust facebook even though I have no interest in funding either one. There should NEVER be a paywall link in an article summary. Ever. Facebook is merely a particularly egregious one since they are so full of douchebaggery.
Re: (Score:2)
And why on earth would I want to do that? Facebook has nothing of value to offer me that I care about
Well apparently now it does, or you wouldn't be complaining.
ProTip: It's not like you need to give Facebook any real data to sign up, and you can access it in privacy mode to thwart tracking cookies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well apparently now it does, or you wouldn't be complaining.
Nope. Merely expressing annoyance at the assumption that I should have to sign up for a Facebook account. "Oh you just have to log in" is utterly unhelpful to me. Even if I had an account and could log in I have no desire to do so.
ProTip: It's not like you need to give Facebook any real data to sign up, and you can access it in privacy mode to thwart tracking cookies.
It's one more annoying thing to keep track of, it gives Facebook the opportunity to track at least some of my activity even in privacy mode, and privacy mode does not thwart all tracking. Furthermore in order to really do anything genuinely useful with Facebook you need to "fri
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has nothing of value to offer me
Ahhh then clearly there is no problem here. Please move on to the next Slashdot article.
Re: (Score:3)
You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB. It's not like it's an achievement worth crowing about. There are thousands, if not millions, of sites with sign-ins that I haven't signed up for. No one in the world, including my wife and daughter, give even the slightest shit.
Basically, you're so wrapped up in yourself you firmly believe in the sjbe-centric model of the Universe. Too fucking many "good e
Re: (Score:3)
You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB
So basically everyone on the planet should trust their private information to an untrustworthy data-mining company. And we're just supposed to... all be fine with this and hope that it works out?
Got a bit of irony on you (Score:3)
You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB.
Apparently you care since you got all worked up about it here in the "slash-shit echo chamber". Little bit of irony there that seems to have escaped your notice. You also apparently are unable to comprehend that my point was in regards to the annoying assumption that everyone has a facebook account. I use myself as an example but I'm hardly the only one. I would make the exact same point about a NYT paywall link although to be honest I trust the NYT far more than I ever would trust facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was logged in and could see it. I logged out and could not. I logged in again and could see it.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here. Facebook is not the Web. Requiring someone to be on Facebook to access your content is just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
NO photo, article, etc... should be linked to on /. unless it is fully available to EVERYONE!!!
I use the Lynx browser you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Or I could treat content hidden behind a curtain as invisible, which to me, this is.
Fuck it, if they wanted to share they'd have posted it somewhere people could see it. Their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
I love your assumption that everybody uses this thing called Facebook. Here's a hint for you: Several billion people don't.
It's ok, the rest of the Internet mostly works.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are not on Facebook then don't click Facebook links and whine about it not working. Facebook works for Facebook users.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just confused about people deep-linking walled off content. It's fucking pointless. It's a bit like me offering you this awesome picture of Mel Gibson riding a motorbike with a chipmunk balanced on the handlebars:
file:///home/cederic/pictures/awesome/mel/motorbike-chipmunk.png
Awesome, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that there is no free way to get access to that content though there is for Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing "free" about getting ads and spam thrown at you. If advertisement was free, they wouldn't charge you to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just knock on my door and ask to use my PC for a couple of minutes.
It's pretty straightforward and although I'll ask for your name I promise not to sell it to advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a tour company jump through your hoops when they are comfortable using Facebook? They have no obligation to supply data for free in the format you prefer.
Your way is not free as it cost a floppy disk and mailing costs. Free goes both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting it on slashdot, especially with other sources of photos of probably equal quality? Pure bait.
Facebook isn't free either. It's as free as the AOL disk the data is written on, though I'll grant you postage. I'll counter with data costs though, for the spam mail. [Aside: my email is already flooded with facebook crap. Doesn't seem a month goes by without someone signing up using one of my accounts.]
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that there is no free way to get access to that content though there is for Facebook.
Everything has a cost. Do you think Facebook is putting up their servers and paying their programmers out of the sheer goodness of their hearts?
Re: (Score:2)
For the poster it is free and for the reader it is free. Costs are paid for by advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
Free? Sorta-kinda, in a very liberal sense of the word.
It's not free as in libre ("here's some stuff, do what you want with it"), and it's not free as in beer ("hey man, want a beer?").
It's "free" as a flyer stuck in your front door that says "Call this number to get a free 24-pack of Pepsi," and you call that number, and you get connected to a vacuum salesman who will deliver your "free" soda while he gives you a ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I hate your assumption that anyone gives two fucks about your self-centered opinion. The Internet would be a far better place if you were banned for life. Or better yet, banned from life.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for not giving you everything on a silver platter.
Apology accepted however, your link is still broken.
Re: (Score:2)
your link is still broken.
It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.
Re: (Score:2)
your link is still broken.
It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.
You're new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Stamped steel, not silver.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't click on Facebook links.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a better idea, don't use facebook links. What kind of mind-wave uses facebook for crap like that? Oh I know, the same kind that liked "aol keywords."
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of mind-wave uses facebook for crap like that?
Someone with a Facebook page?
A tour operator with a Facebook page posted photos on Facebook and it was linked to by someone else. Where do you think they should have been posted?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with a Facebook page?
Well, people used to joke that cancer was killing the internet, now it appears that people are promoting it. It's okay for some I guess, there's always the possibility of mutant powers from it.
Where do you think they should have been posted?
Oh I don't know, how about the tour operators website?
Re: (Score:2)
If you killed yourself, you'd be a happier, more well-adjusted person. Try it! PLEASE!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't know, how about the tour operators website?
Perhaps they want to keep their business site for business and not act as a new site for a volcano? The volcano is probably not going to be erupting for long so tour packages are probably not an option.
You sure hate Facebook. What did it ever do to you?
Re: (Score:2)
You should feel right at home then, seeing as how you were shat out of some poor woman's ass.
Seems to me that the volcano... (Score:5, Insightful)
would be PART of the ecosystem, no?
Re: (Score:2)
It's *all* part of a very delicate ecosystem [youtube.com].
Incorrect (Score:2)
On a related note, there is a difference between caring about the preservation of endangered species and pimping 'organic' food. Only the later involves mindlessly screaming "but it's natural!"
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that the characterization of a potential eruption as a "threat" to the ecosystem ignores the simple fact that the source of the "threat" is as natural a part of the ecosystem as the plants and animals that are being "threatened".
The species plants and animals that are living there have evolved in that place WITH the local geology. Periodic volcanic eruptions are an intrinsic PART of that particular ecosystem. The fact that the plants and animals are still there after untold numbers of past erupt
Tourism (Score:4, Funny)
Good to know that the exceedingly wealthy will not be suffering from slight inconvenience. And to think I was worried about the possible loss of irreplaceable ecological assets...
Re: (Score:2)
And to think I was worried about the possible loss of irreplaceable ecological assets...
Why worry? Its a perfectly natural occurrence, completely out of our control, & nobody is in harm's way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know it seems like tourists are an infinitely-renewable resource, but how can we be sure?
Working links with pictures (Score:5, Informative)
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-p... [phys.org]
https://volcanocafe.wordpress.... [wordpress.com]
http://www.volcanodiscovery.co... [volcanodiscovery.com]
http://www.andes.info.ec/en/et... [andes.info.ec]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Working links with pictures (Score:4)
You're welcome. I was irked everyone was complaining about the submission, and I wanted to see pictures. I enjoy volcano pictures and
videos. From a safe distance.
Re:Working links with pictures (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, the Spanish-language version of the last link has much better pictures [andes.info.ec] than the English-language version.
White Man's Fault (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly this is a manmade disaster caused by White American Republican Males. They should stop volcanoing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking News: Muslim Televangelist states the eruption is caused by masturbation.
Re: (Score:2)
Update: Muslim Televangelist retracts statement and issues apology; cites idiomatic confusion of the term 'pink iguana'.
Re: (Score:2)
wait, didn't ISIS just claim responsibility for this?
Re: (Score:3)
If you think about it it only makes sense that fracking in America creates underground pressures which *must* force volcanos to erupt worldwide to alleviate the pressure. Frackers Drilled, Volcanoes Killed!
Look for my paper on this in Science next month. It contains MANY data points which took me ages to fabri---er, collect.
Re: (Score:2)
The link is probably to a Nul device which caused a buffer overrun resulting in the ejaculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Gay colored igaunas need to butch up
Here's a better link for an image (Score:2)
Wired has it. [wired.com]
You realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if humans save these pink iguanas, we are interfering with nature. Can't have it both ways, by saying our actions that make stuff go extinct is bad, and actions by nature that makes stuff go extinct is bad, too.
Re:You realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
...if humans save these pink iguanas, we are interfering with nature.
Yes. And?
Can't have it both ways, by saying our actions that make stuff go extinct is bad, and actions by nature that makes stuff go extinct is bad, too.
Can't have what both ways? The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad. Yes, even when its entirely due to natural causes its still in our bests interests to preserve it. Biodiversity is objectively valuable; because we can learn from it.
Letting a species go extinct is like shredding the last copy of a book. The more interesting and unique the species the greater the loss to science.
Finally, and perhaps tangentially, its also rational to put higher value on the larger / famous species -- the extinction of some obscure spider or toad is perhaps just as much a loss as the extinction of tigers scientifically. But tigers are culturally significant in addition to being scientifically significant. So the extra awareness and priority to them is warranted.
Re: (Score:3)
Says who? You realise that >99% of species that have ever lived are extinct? Of course it seems sad when a species goes extinct, especially as it's often because of unnecessary predation by humans (e.g. elephants, rhinos), so let's concentrate on stopping our own species being such arseholes. However, in general extinction is totally natural, and as in this (rare) case when it's not our fault at all, then let it be. I suspect that those Iguan
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it seems sad
"seems sad"? Did you even read what I wrote? I gave two separate and specific contexts where extinction is a clear loss to humanity: scientific loss in all cases, and cultural loss in more limited cases. Both go well beyond "seems sad".
, especially as it's often because of unnecessary predation by humans (e.g. elephants, rhinos),
Along with climate changes, desertification, habitat destruction, food chain collapse,...
. However, in general extinction is totally natural
Nobody is arguing that point. A meter striking a major city would be totally natural too. "Natural" is hardly a reason to simply let it happen if we see it coming.
and as in this (rare) case when it's not our fault at all, then let it be
It's still a scientific
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very anthropocentric way of looking at things.
I can't tell if your suggesting that's good or bad. I think its good.
It's really sad when even the people 'defending' the natural order feel the need to shape their argument in a way so that 'people' benefit.
That's not anthropocentric. That's personal / self-interested / ego-centric.
It's worst with Archaeologists, whose goal in life is to root up everything and use 'the most modern techniques possible' to tear apart the historical evidence, then deposit some of the 'good bits' in modern steel and glass buildings.
That's a strange way of looking at it. They are seeking to learn and recover that which is -lost-. I can't see how not finding that which is lost is somehow doing us any good.
Granted the longer we wait to find that which is lost the better our technology for preserving it is but that is offset by
- a how long do we wait? clearly if we wait forever we never benefit
Re: (Score:2)
1. Every species has value.
2. Every species does not have infinite value.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Every species has value.
2. Every species does not have infinite value.
I'd argue the Galapagos species are priceless. But I would also agree, that even priceless doesn't mean they have infinite value. There must be a reasonable limit on what we'd spend to save them ... but surely we agree its well above 0.
Re: (Score:2)
The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad.
I don't think you'd be here typing that if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct. Extinction is not bad, nor is it good, it simply is. It is evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you'd be here typing that if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct
Probably not. Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.
And yes, obviously prior extinctions leading to the evolution of humanity were not bad for humanity.
On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.
Other species co-existent with humanity now going extinct, in the sense that it represents a reduction in biodiversity to draw on and study is also bad for humanity.
Extinction is not bad, nor is it good, it simply is. It is evolution.
Right, it is not good or bad relative to the universe; its not
Re:You realize... (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.
Except that it's not. In the vast majority of cases it's neutral. In some cases it might be good. You have some kind of Greenpeace-like attitude that humanity == bad, every other species == good. That's not how the Universe works.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's not. In the vast majority of cases it's neutral.
No. The total loss of a species to study and learn from is a loss. That's not neutral. Its not like one species is dying to be replaced by another; right now were are experiencing decreasing bio-diversity.
You have some kind of Greenpeace-like attitude that humanity == bad, every other species == good. That's not how the Universe works.
My entire argument is centered on what is to the ultimate benefit of humanity. And another respondent even (rightfully) called my position "anthropocentric". I'm not sure what to make of your comment; except to say: "swing and a miss".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that Greenpeace is arguably the good guys, in the same way as these "let Galapagos species die because it's natural" is a bad idea. Extinctions DO seem to serve a purpose in the grand scheme -- but only to wipe the slate clean for new designs. The earth has come close to becoming lifeless and either too hot or too cold, and that's been largely due to imbalances that cause species die off. So YES, more diversity = GOOD. And that's a provable statement in many subjective and objective ways.
I just admi
Re: (Score:2)
No. We're simply the top of the food chain. Everything else is, quite literally, beneath us, and has been for a most (all?) of recorded history.
Does the wolf care whether the rabbit he just killed was the last example? Nay, he simply fills his belly with it, finds something else to devour, and the Earth gives no shits.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.
Are you suggesting nature gives a f about us? We will go extinct, and probably by our own doing. Everything that has a beginning has an end.
Personally, I think the whole debate against human activity being 'unnatural' is stupid. We are a product of this planet, what we do is natural, we aren't some extra-terrestrial interfering with our planet, we're natives living here, influencing our world. For better, or for worse. And a lot of in between.
Re: (Score:2)
Smallpox.
Measles.
Rabies.
Plague.
So, it would be universally bad for humanity if those died out? If so, why all the efforts to immunize people against them?
Or did you mean that "Cute things going extinct is universally bad for humanity"?
Re: (Score:2)
To move them is to promote the use of fossil fuel.
Is that a "for real" reason not to preserve a species, or are you just trolling? In a world where we use oil to make plastic McDonald's happy meal toys in china, and then more oil to ship to the united states, then more oil shipping them to a landfill after kids played with them for exactly 5 minutes once, the argument against using fossile fuels cost of preserving Galapagos species falls pretty flat.
What will moving them do to the food chain of the area that the iguanas now inhabit ?
Not moving them, and having them go extinct would have the same effect.
Is it better to move all of them or to split the colony ?
Have we identified anything else that
Re: (Score:2)
I have to roll my eyes at this concept. The logic seems to be based on a sock puppet concept of what will most annoy Environmentalists, or Hippies, or whatever is trying to "force humans to behave". Humans have an impact, merely by being a successful organism. If mosquitos killed off the dinosaurs, do we "blame" them? No.
However, humans are in the position of mitigating their effect -- not only that, but we can PICK WINNERS! Human interference, or perhaps symbiosis, has elevated dogs to family pets and hel
Funny (Score:2)
"Environmentalists voice concern over iguanas"
Cool, environmentalists voice concern over the environment making a species extinct.
We should put a stop to the environment!
Anti-environmentalist God denounced.... (Score:2)
Re:Earth-made Global Warming Baloney (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't you hear? The Fracking in the US caused the Volcano to erupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Like it did in 1982 as well.